Partly allowed

John Kerketta v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./1039/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand affirmed conviction for cheating and forgery after twenty-four years. Modified concurrent sentences to allow remission upon payment of fine within four months; otherwise execution of remaining sentence continues.

What did the court decide?

Sentences modified to run for period already undergone subject to payment of fine Rs.15000 each within 4 months; otherwise serve remaining sentence. Bail bonds discharged on fulfilment of conditions.

John Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 1039 of 2008

¶4

John Kerketta ….. …. Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ….. ….Opposite Parties Cr. Revision No. 1122 of 2008 -------

¶6

Kamal Kishore ….. …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. ….Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

------For the Petitioner :Mr. R.P.Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party :Mr. M. K. Mishra, APP Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP ………

¶9

05/01.11.2022 These revision applications are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment as both are arising out of the same P.S. Case.

¶10

2. These revision applications are directed against the common judgment dated 27.09.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.112 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2008; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, corresponding to G.R. No.1176/98 and T.R. No.724 of 2008; whereby the petitioners (in both cases) were convicted for the offence under Sections 420 and 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of Three years each with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Sectin 420 IPC and to undergo R.I. for a period of Three years each with a fine of Rs.10000/- for the offence under Section 468 IPC, and in default of fine further to undergo S.I. for a period of Seven months and all the sentences were directed to run separately; has been affirmed with modification that the sentences shall be run concurrently and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under each

¶11

¶12

offence and the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer for modifying the sentence as the case is of the year 1998 and the petitioners have faced the rigors of litigation for last 24 years. At present petitioners are aged persons and they also remained in custody for about 146 days (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.1039/08) and 252 days (in Cr. Rev. No.1122/08). As such at this stage sending them back to jail even for short period will hamper their entire family; as such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶15

5. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶16

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1998 and about 24 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 24 years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail and they also remained in custody for about 146 & 252 days respectively.

¶17

7 . In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of

¶18

¶19

justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶20

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.15000/-each by petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.1039/08 & in Cr. Rev. No.1122/08.

¶21

9 . It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine amount within a period of 4 months from today before the DLSA, Hazaribagh; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned courts below.

¶22

10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision applications are disposed of.

¶23

11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶24

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, DLSA, Hazaribagh and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶25

13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶26

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶27

Fahim /-

John Kerketta v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Kerketta v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Prasad Soni Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Prasad Mehta Baleshwar Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand

Ishraful Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Pranab Paul Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Bijawa Devi Bijua Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Vijay Prasad Soni  Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Prasad Mehta  Baleshwar Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand

Ishraful Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Pranab Paul Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Bijawa Devi  Bijua Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Vijay Prasad Soni Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Prasad Mehta Baleshwar Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand

Bijawa Devi Bijua Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.